DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 9, & 10 are objected to because of the following minor informalities in grammar and phrasing:
Claim 1: “based on a captured image obtained in the imaging the inspection chart”. Moreover, the phrase only implies a structure that can be used to for imaging the inspection chart (such as the imaging device claimed in Claim 9), but is insufficiently claiming this structure in the current phrasing.
Claim 1: Similarly, this claim implies a structure for obtaining the various variables claimed and processing the calculations claimed in the method (such as the controller claimed in Claim 9), but is insufficiently claiming this structure in the current phrasing.
Claims 1, 9, & 10: “nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle”. This grammatically incorrect phrase is present in all three independent claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 & 3 restate the calculation method (aka formula) of obtaining the second differential amount already claimed in Claim 1, but describe the formula with different terms. This fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (i.e., Claim 1). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoso et al. (US 20150336381 A1; “Kyoso”) in view of Yokozawa et al. (US 20190283447 A1; herein referred to as “Yokozawa”) and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20110227988 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Kyoso teaches a landing position deviation amount detection method of detecting a landing position deviation amount of ink (i.e., “abnormality detection method” including obtaining a “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212 & Abstract) in a printing apparatus (i.e., “printing apparatus”; ¶0075-0078 & Fig. 1)
including a plurality of nozzles configured to eject ink onto a print medium conveyed in a first direction (i.e., “plurality of nozzles” with print medium conveyed in a “sheet transport direction”; ¶0078),
the landing position deviation amount detection method (i.e., “abnormality detection method” including obtaining a ““landing position shift amount”; ¶0212 & Abstract) comprising:
printing, by the printing apparatus, an inspection chart (i.e., “test pattern” printed by “ink jet recording apparatus”; ¶0086-0087, ¶0022, & ¶0113-0114) including M-stage inspection patterns corresponding one-to-one to M groups obtained by grouping the plurality of nozzles, where M is an integer of 2 or more (i.e., “various test patterns” can include a “1-on n-off” type test pattern with “nozzle groups”, where “n” is an integer greater than zero; ¶0113-0115). Kyoso teaches a range (i.e., an integer greater than zero), which overlaps the claimed range of an integer greater than 2 or more (see MPEP 2131.03).
imaging the inspection chart (i.e., “image reading unit 24” is used for “reading an image” such as “test patterns”; ¶0086);
obtaining a reference position with taking each of the plurality of nozzles as a focused nozzle (i.e., the specific nozzle being tested via a specific line pattern, with each line pattern “independent of each other for each nozzle”; ¶0114-0116), the reference position being a position at which ink ejected from the focused nozzle is assumed to land on the print medium (i.e., “ideal landing position”; ¶0212). Note that Kyoso often refers to the specific focused nozzle of interest as “ejector n” or “n” to indicate the specific nozzle of interest (see ¶0151 as an example).
obtaining an actual landing position that is a position at which ink ejected from the focused nozzle is actually landed on the print medium (i.e., “actual landing position”; ¶0212), based on a captured image obtained in the imaging the inspection chart (i.e., “test patterns” used for “inspecting the ejection state of the ejector”; ¶0086-0087);
obtaining a first differential amount that is a difference between the actual landing position and the reference position (i.e., “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212).
Kyoso is silent on
obtaining a moving average that is an average of the first differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle and are to land ink at a position within a predetermined distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from a position at which the focused nozzle is to land ink;
obtaining a second differential amount that is a difference between the difference between the actual landing position and the reference position and the moving average; obtaining an average second differential amount that is an average of the second differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group different from the focused nozzle and are associated with the focused nozzle in advance; and
obtaining a landing position deviation amount that is a difference between the second differential amount and the average second differential amount.
Yokozawa teaches
obtaining a moving average that is an average of the first differential amounts of… nozzles (i.e., “smoothing algorithm that is a low-pass filter”, such as a “moving average filter”; Yokozawa: ¶0135). Note that Yokozawa teaches that the timing of applying this smoothing of a data set associated with nozzle alignment detection can be “either during analog processing or digital processing” (Yokozawa: ¶0135).
obtaining a second differential amount that is a difference between the difference between the actual landing position and the reference position and the moving average; obtaining an average second differential amount that is an average of the second differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group different from the focused nozzle and are associated with the focused nozzle in advance (i.e., the above limitations are taught in the “third process”, which “removes noise” between orientation-related data and the “test pattern P for identifying nozzle position”; ¶0136-0137). Conceptually, Yokozawa is teaching obtaining a differential amount after obtaining a moving average of position-related data, wherein the differential amount is associated with comparing marks on the inspection pattern (aka actual landing positions) to data points of orientation that are not the inspection pattern mark itself, so as to ensure more accurate understanding of the location of the marks on the inspection pattern (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137). Moreover, Yokozawa teaches the “third process” will remove noise in the data (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137), and Yokozawa has previously taught that a “moving average filter” is a viable form of reducing noise in a data set (Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135). Kyoso’s moving average acts as an additional point of orientation, other than the actual landing position marks. Kyoso’s first differential amount (i.e., “landing position shift amount”; Kyoso: ¶0212) contains this actual landing position (i.e., it is a difference between the actual landing position and the reference position). Therefore, Yokozawa teaches the method of obtaining a second differential amount as specified above. Moreover, Yokozawa teaches the smoothing of these second differential amounts to generate an average second differential amount, because Yokozawa acknowledges this process also removes noise in the data (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137), and teaches that noise can be reduced/removed via taking a moving average (Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that an average requires at least two data points and that an average used to decrease noise in data to detect the positioning of each focused nozzle requires that average second differential amount be used in juxtaposition to the actual landing position associated with the focused nozzle. Therefore, the average must be composed of data other than the focused nozzle itself, ideally with data far from the inspectional pattern mark associated with the focused nozzle (i.e., Yokozawa uses data points of orientation set up in advance that do not belong to the focused nozzle’s nozzle group, but are intended in advance to be used in this “third process” associated with the focused nozzle; Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137).
obtaining a landing position deviation amount that is a difference between the second differential amount and the average second differential amount (as discussed in the paragraph above, Yokozawa teaches a second differential amount and an average second differential amount; Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that that the unsmoothed data of the second differential amount could be compared to the smoothed version of the data (aka the average second differential amount) via subtracting one from the other and represented as a landing position deviation amount. Yokozawa on multiple occasions shows graphs of data before and after it has been smoothed (such as Yokozawa’s Fig. 29 compared to Fig. 30), but it would have been obvious that this change could also have been represented as landing position deviation amounts, showing the variation of the data via subtracting the second differential amount and the average second differential amount.
Yamazaki teaches
obtaining a moving average that is an average of the first differential amounts (previously taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa; Yokozawa: ¶0135; i.e., formula 4 shows the concept of a moving average wherein 2 nozzles other than the focused nozzle are used in an average so that it can be a different way to approximate the actual landing position on an inspection pattern; Yamazaki: ¶0242-0243 & Fig. 27) of two or more nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle and are to land ink at a position within a predetermined distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from a position at which the focused nozzle is to land ink (i.e., the other greater than two other nozzles from the same group used are associated with the actual landing positions shown as “adjacent lines (test patterns) on either side” of the focused nozzle’s actual landing position test mark; right-to-left in Fig. 27 is the orthogonal direction; Yamazaki:¶0241 & Fig. 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Kyoso by obtaining a moving average of the first differential amount, because Yokozawa teaches applying a “moving average filter” is a viable method to remove the “noise cause by uneven illuminance” when the inspectional pattern is imaged (Yokozawa: ¶0135 & 0131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Kyoso by obtaining a second differential amount and then smoothing this data by taking a moving average of the second differential amounts, because Yokozawa teaches that adding this “third process” to the method beneficially “executes removal of unnecessary noise so that thin ink can be detected” (Yokozawa: ¶0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa to represent the smoothing of the data by showing graphs of the original data compared to the smoothed data (such as the smoothing of data associated with the second differential amount, an amount taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa; Kyoso: ¶0212 & Yokozawa: ¶0134-0137), whereas it would have been obvious that making that comparison by subtracting the second differential amount and the average second differential amount would result in distinct landing position deviation amount values that provide more accurate information than visually “eye-balling” deviations by comparing two graphs to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa regarding obtaining a moving average by obtaining a moving average of the first differential amount, by having this moving average use 2 or more nozzles with the claimed limitations (e.g., same nozzle group, positioning of landing ink), given Yamazaki teaches that these limitations are commonly included in methods for obtaining the moving average of data associated with the positioning of ink jet nozzles (Yamazaki: ¶0241-0243 & Fig. 27).
With respect to Claim 8, Kyoso teaches the landing position deviation amount detection method according to claim 1. Note that Kyoso teaches M-stage inspection patterns can include “various test patterns” (such as a “1-on n-off” type test pattern with “nozzle groups”, where “n” is an integer greater than zero; ¶0113-0115).
Kyoso is silent on
each of the M-stage inspection patterns includes a plurality of linear patterns that extend in the first direction and should be arranged at equal intervals in the second direction.
Yamazaki teaches
each of the M-stage inspection patterns includes a plurality of linear patterns that extend in the first direction and should be arranged at equal intervals in the second direction (see Yamazaki’s Fig. 12, where up-down is the first direction and right-left is the second direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kyoso’s test pattern, which could be a variety of pattern, to have the common form shown in Yamazaki’s Fig. 12, which depicts the limitations claimed. The test pattern shown in Yamazaki’s Fig. 12 is beneficial for a method of detecting defective ejection nozzles (Yamazaki: Abstract; Fig. 12 & Fig. 8).
With respect to Claim 9, Yamazaki teaches a printing apparatus (i.e., “printing apparatus”; ¶0075-0078 & Fig. 1) comprising:
a plurality of nozzles configured to eject ink onto a print medium conveyed in a first direction (i.e., “plurality of nozzles” in recording heads “20”, with print medium conveyed in a “sheet transport direction”; ¶0078);
an imaging device configured to image a print image (i.e., “image reading unit 24”; ¶0086-0089); and
a controller (i.e., “control device 14”; ¶0092-0096) configured to control
ejection of ink from the plurality of nozzles (Fig. 1 showing controller “14” with “recording control unit 48”, connected to “recording heads 20” which contain the plurality of nozzles) and
imaging of the print image by the imaging device (Fig. 1 showing controller “14” with “image reading unit 24”)
the controller executing:
an inspection chart printing process of controlling the ejection of ink from the plurality of nozzles so that an inspection chart (i.e., “test pattern” printed by “ink jet recording apparatus”; ¶0086-0087, ¶0022, & ¶0113-0114) including M-stage inspection patterns corresponding one-to-one to M groups obtained by grouping the plurality of nozzles is printed, where M is an integer of 2 or more (i.e., “various test patterns” can include a “1-on n-off” type test pattern with “nozzle groups”, where “n” is an integer greater than zero; ¶0113-0115). Kyoso teaches a range (i.e., an integer greater than zero), which overlaps the claimed range of an integer greater than 2 or more (see MPEP 2131.03);
an inspection chart imaging process of causing the imaging device to image the inspection chart printed by the inspection chart printing process (i.e., “image reading unit 24” is used for “reading an image” such as “test patterns” using “image analysis unit 52”; ¶0086 & Fig. 1);
a reference position calculation process of obtaining, with taking each of the plurality of nozzles as a focused nozzle (i.e., the specific nozzle being tested via a specific line pattern, with each line pattern “independent of each other for each nozzle”; ¶0114-0116), a position at which ink ejected from the focused nozzle is assumed to land on the print medium as a reference position (i.e., “ideal landing position”; ¶0212). Note that Kyoso often refers to the specific focused nozzle of interest as “ejector n” or “n” to indicate the specific nozzle of interest (see ¶0151 as an example).
an actual landing position calculation process of obtaining a position at which ink ejected from the focused nozzle is actually landed on the print medium as an actual landing position (i.e., “actual landing position”; ¶0212) based on a captured image obtained by the inspection chart imaging process (i.e., “test patterns” used for “inspecting the ejection state of the ejector”; ¶0086-0087)
a first differential amount calculation process of obtaining a difference between the actual landing position and the reference position as a first differential amount (i.e., “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212);
Kyoso is silent on
a moving average calculation process of obtaining an average of the first differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle and are to land ink at a position within a predetermined distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from a position at which the focused nozzle is to land ink, as a moving average corresponding to the focused nozzle;
a second differential amount calculation process of obtaining a difference between the difference between the actual landing position and the reference position and the moving average, as a second differential amount; an average second differential amount calculation process of obtaining an average of the second differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group different from the focused nozzle and are associated with the focused nozzle in advance, as an average second differential amount corresponding to the focused nozzle; and
a landing position deviation amount calculation process of obtaining a difference between the second differential amount and the average second differential amount, as a landing position deviation amount.
Yokozawa teaches
a moving average calculation process of obtaining an average of the first differential amounts of… nozzles (i.e., “smoothing algorithm that is a low-pass filter”, such as a “moving average filter”; Yokozawa: ¶0135). Note that Yokozawa teaches that the timing of applying this smoothing of a data set associated with nozzle alignment detection can be “either during analog processing or digital processing” (Yokozawa: ¶0135).
a second differential amount calculation process of obtaining a difference between the difference between the actual landing position and the reference position and the moving average, as a second differential amount; an average second differential amount calculation process of obtaining an average of the second differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group different from the focused nozzle and are associated with the focused nozzle in advance, as an average second differential amount corresponding to the focused nozzle; (i.e., the above limitations are taught in the “third process”, which “removes noise” between orientation-related data and the “test pattern P for identifying nozzle position”; ¶0136-0137). Conceptually, Yokozawa is teaching obtaining a differential amount after obtaining a moving average of position-related data, wherein the differential amount is associated with comparing marks on the inspection pattern (aka actual landing positions) to data points of orientation that are not the inspection pattern mark itself, so as to ensure more accurate understanding of the location of the marks on the inspection pattern (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137). Moreover, Yokozawa teaches the “third process” will remove noise in the data (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137), and Yokozawa has previously taught that a “moving average filter” is a viable form of reducing noise in a data set (Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135). Kyoso’s moving average acts as an additional point of orientation, other than the actual landing position marks. Kyoso’s first differential amount (i.e., “landing position shift amount”; Kyoso: ¶0212) contains this actual landing position (i.e., it is a difference between the actual landing position and the reference position). Therefore, Yokozawa teaches the method of obtaining a second differential amount as specified above. Moreover, Yokozawa teaches the smoothing of these second differential amounts to generate an average second differential amount, because Yokozawa acknowledges this process also removes noise in the data (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137), and teaches that noise can be reduced/removed via taking a moving average (Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that an average requires at least two data points and that an average used to decrease noise in data to detect the positioning of each focused nozzle requires that average second differential amount be used in juxtaposition to the actual landing position associated with the focused nozzle. Therefore, the average must be composed of data other than the focused nozzle itself, ideally with data far from the inspectional pattern mark associated with the focused nozzle (i.e., Yokozawa uses data points of orientation set up in advance that do not belong to the focused nozzle’s nozzle group, but are intended in advance to be used in this “third process” associated with the focused nozzle; Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137).
a landing position deviation amount calculation process of obtaining a difference between the second differential amount and the average second differential amount, as a landing position deviation amount (as discussed in the paragraph above, Yokozawa teaches a second differential amount and an average second differential amount; Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that that the unsmoothed data of the second differential amount could be compared to the smoothed version of the data (aka the average second differential amount) via subtracting one from the other and represented as a landing position deviation amount. Yokozawa on multiple occasions shows graphs of data before and after it has been smoothed (such as Yokozawa’s Fig. 29 compared to Fig. 30), but it would have been obvious that this process of comparison could also have been conducted by calculating landing position deviation amounts, showing the variation of the data via subtracting the second differential amount and the average second differential amount.
Yamazaki teaches
a moving average calculation process of obtaining an average of the first differential amounts (previously taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa; Yokozawa: ¶0135; i.e., formula 4 shows the concept of a moving average wherein 2 nozzles other than the focused nozzle are used in an average so that it can be a different way to approximate the actual landing position on an inspection pattern; Yamazaki: ¶0242-0243 & Fig. 27) of two or more nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle and are to land ink at a position within a predetermined distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from a position at which the focused nozzle is to land ink, as a moving average corresponding to the focused nozzle (i.e., the other greater than two other nozzles from the same group used are associated with the actual landing positions shown as “adjacent lines (test patterns) on either side” of the focused nozzle’s actual landing position test mark; right-to-left in Fig. 27 is the orthogonal direction; Yamazaki:¶0241 & Fig. 27);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller taught by Kyoso by obtaining a moving average of the first differential amount, because Yokozawa teaches applying a “moving average filter” is a viable method to remove the “noise cause by uneven illuminance” when the inspectional pattern is imaged (Yokozawa: ¶0135 & 0131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller taught by Kyoso by obtaining a second differential amount and then smoothing this data by taking a moving average of the second differential amounts, because Yokozawa teaches that adding this “third process” to the method beneficially “executes removal of unnecessary noise so that thin ink can be detected” (Yokozawa: ¶0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa to represent the smoothing of the data by showing graphs of the original data compared to the smoothed data (such as the smoothing of data associated with the second differential amount, an amount taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa; Kyoso: ¶0212 & Yokozawa: ¶0134-0137) in a more accurate way than just visual comparison of two graphs. As stated above, it would have been obvious that making that comparison by subtracting the second differential amount and the average second differential amount would result in distinct landing position deviation amount values that provide more accurate information than visually “eye-balling” deviations by comparing two graphs to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa regarding obtaining a moving average by obtaining a moving average of the first differential amount, by having this moving average use 2 or more nozzles with the claimed limitations (e.g., same nozzle group, positioning of landing ink), given Yamazaki teaches that these limitations are commonly included in methods for obtaining the moving average of data associated with the positioning of ink jet nozzles (Yamazaki: ¶0241-0243 & Fig. 27).
With respect to Claim 10, Yamazaki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a landing position deviation amount detection program (i.e., “control device 14”’s recording medium’s program, including its “calculation unit 34”, “recording control unit 48”, etc) for detecting a landing position deviation amount of ink in a printing apparatus including
a plurality of nozzles configured to eject ink onto a print medium conveyed in a first direction (i.e., “plurality of nozzles” in recording heads “20”, with print medium conveyed in a “sheet transport direction”; ¶0078) and
an imaging device configured to image a print image (i.e., “image reading unit 24”; ¶0086-0089),
the landing position deviation amount detection program causing a computer (i.e., “control device 14”’s recording medium’s program, including its “calculation unit 34”, “recording control unit 48”, etc) included in the printing apparatus (i.e., “printing apparatus”; ¶0075-0078 & Fig. 1) to execute:
controlling ejection of ink from the plurality of nozzles so that an inspection chart (Fig. 1 showing controller “14” with “recording control unit 48”, connected to “recording heads 20” which contain the plurality of nozzles) including M-stage inspection patterns corresponding one-to-one to M groups obtained by grouping the plurality of nozzles is printed, where M is an integer of 2 or more (i.e., “various test patterns” can include a “1-on n-off” type test pattern with “nozzle groups”, where “n” is an integer greater than zero; ¶0113-0115). Kyoso teaches a range (i.e., an integer greater than zero), which overlaps the claimed range of an integer greater than 2 or more (see MPEP 2131.03);
causing the imaging device to image the inspection chart so as to obtain a captured image of the inspection chart (i.e., “image reading unit 24” is used for “reading an image” such as “test patterns” using “image analysis unit 52”; ¶0086 & Fig. 1);
obtaining a reference position with taking each of the plurality of nozzles as a focused nozzle (i.e., the specific nozzle being tested via a specific line pattern, with each line pattern “independent of each other for each nozzle”; ¶0114-0116), the reference position being a position at which ink ejected from the focused nozzle is assumed to land on the print medium (i.e., “ideal landing position”; ¶0212). Note that Kyoso often refers to the specific focused nozzle of interest as “ejector n” or “n” to indicate the specific nozzle of interest (see ¶0151 as an example);
obtaining an actual landing position that is a position at which ink ejected from the focused nozzle is actually landed on the print medium (i.e., “actual landing position”; ¶0212), based on the captured image (i.e., “test patterns” used for “inspecting the ejection state of the ejector”; ¶0086-0087);
obtaining a first differential amount that is a difference between the actual landing position and the reference position (i.e., “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212);
Kyoso is silent on
obtaining a moving average that is an average of the first differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle and are to land ink at a position within a predetermined distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from a position at which the focused nozzle is to land ink;
obtaining a second differential amount that is a difference between the difference between the actual landing position and the reference position and the moving average; obtaining an average second differential amount that is an average of the second differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group different from the focused nozzle and are associated with the focused nozzle in advance; and
obtaining a landing position deviation amount that is a difference between the second differential amount and the average second differential amount.
Yokozawa teaches
obtaining a moving average that is an average of the first differential amounts of… nozzles (i.e., “smoothing algorithm that is a low-pass filter”, such as a “moving average filter”; Yokozawa: ¶0135). Note that Yokozawa teaches that the timing of applying this smoothing of a data set associated with nozzle alignment detection can be “either during analog processing or digital processing” (Yokozawa: ¶0135);
obtaining a second differential amount that is a difference between the difference between the actual landing position and the reference position and the moving average; obtaining an average second differential amount that is an average of the second differential amounts of two or more nozzles that belong to a group different from the focused nozzle and are associated with the focused nozzle in advance; (i.e., the above limitations are taught in the “third process”, which “removes noise” between orientation-related data and the “test pattern P for identifying nozzle position”; ¶0136-0137). Conceptually, Yokozawa is teaching obtaining a differential amount after obtaining a moving average of position-related data, wherein the differential amount is associated with comparing marks on the inspection pattern (aka actual landing positions) to data points of orientation that are not the inspection pattern mark itself, so as to ensure more accurate understanding of the location of the marks on the inspection pattern (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137). Moreover, Yokozawa teaches the “third process” will remove noise in the data (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137), and Yokozawa has previously taught that a “moving average filter” is a viable form of reducing noise in a data set (Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135). Kyoso’s moving average acts as an additional point of orientation, other than the actual landing position marks. Kyoso’s first differential amount (i.e., “landing position shift amount”; Kyoso: ¶0212) contains this actual landing position (i.e., it is a difference between the actual landing position and the reference position). Therefore, Yokozawa teaches the method of obtaining a second differential amount as specified above. Moreover, Yokozawa teaches the smoothing of these second differential amounts to generate an average second differential amount, because Yokozawa acknowledges this process also removes noise in the data (Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137), and teaches that noise can be reduced/removed via taking a moving average (Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135).
Lastly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that an average requires at least two data points and that an average used to decrease noise in data to detect the positioning of each focused nozzle requires that average second differential amount be used in juxtaposition to the actual landing position associated with the focused nozzle. Therefore, the average must be composed of data other than the focused nozzle itself, ideally with data far from the inspectional pattern mark associated with the focused nozzle (i.e., Yokozawa uses data points of orientation set up in advance that do not belong to the focused nozzle’s nozzle group, but are intended in advance to be used in this “third process” associated with the focused nozzle; Yokozawa: ¶0136-0137).
obtaining a landing position deviation amount that is a difference between the second differential amount and the average second differential amount (as discussed in the paragraph above, Yokozawa teaches a second differential amount and an average second differential amount; Yokozawa: ¶0134-0135). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that that the unsmoothed data of the second differential amount could be compared to the smoothed version of the data (aka the average second differential amount) via subtracting one from the other and represented as a landing position deviation amount. Yokozawa on multiple occasions shows graphs of data before and after it has been smoothed (such as Yokozawa’s Fig. 29 compared to Fig. 30), but it would have been obvious that this process of comparison could also have been conducted by calculating landing position deviation amounts, showing the variation of the data via subtracting the second differential amount and the average second differential amount.
Yamazaki teaches
obtaining a moving average that is an average of the first differential amounts (previously taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa; Yokozawa: ¶0135; i.e., formula 4 shows the concept of a moving average wherein 2 nozzles other than the focused nozzle are used in an average so that it can be a different way to approximate the actual landing position on an inspection pattern; Yamazaki: ¶0242-0243 & Fig. 27) of two or more nozzles that belong to a group same as the focused nozzle and are to land ink at a position within a predetermined distance in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction from a position at which the focused nozzle is to land ink (i.e., the other greater than two other nozzles from the same group used are associated with the actual landing positions shown as “adjacent lines (test patterns) on either side” of the focused nozzle’s actual landing position test mark; right-to-left in Fig. 27 is the orthogonal direction; Yamazaki:¶0241 & Fig. 27);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium’s program taught by Kyoso by obtaining a moving average of the first differential amount, because Yokozawa teaches applying a “moving average filter” is a viable method to remove the “noise cause by uneven illuminance” when the inspectional pattern is imaged (Yokozawa: ¶0135 & 0131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium’s program taught by Kyoso by obtaining a second differential amount and then smoothing this data by taking a moving average of the second differential amounts, because Yokozawa teaches that adding this “third process” to the method beneficially “executes removal of unnecessary noise so that thin ink can be detected” (Yokozawa: ¶0137).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium’s program taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa to represent the smoothing of the data by showing graphs of the original data compared to the smoothed data (such as the smoothing of data associated with the second differential amount, an amount taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa; Kyoso: ¶0212 & Yokozawa: ¶0134-0137) in a more accurate way than just visual comparison of two graphs. As stated above, it would have been obvious that making that comparison by subtracting the second differential amount and the average second differential amount would result in distinct landing position deviation amount values that provide more accurate information than visually “eye-balling” deviations by comparing two graphs to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium’s program taught by Kyoso in view of Yokozawa regarding obtaining a moving average by obtaining a moving average of the first differential amount, by having this moving average use 2 or more nozzles with the claimed limitations (e.g., same nozzle group, positioning of landing ink), given Yamazaki teaches that these limitations are commonly included in methods for obtaining the moving average of data associated with the positioning of ink jet nozzles (Yamazaki: ¶0241-0243 & Fig. 27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following are statements of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for each claim:
With respect to Claim 4, Kyoso (as modified by Yokozawa and Yamazaki) teaches the landing position deviation amount detection method (i.e., “abnormality detection method” including obtaining a “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212 & Abstract) according to claim 1.
However, Kyoso in combination with the other prior art of record does not reasonably teach or suggest the feature of the landing position deviation amount detection method according to claim 1, wherein regarding the obtaining the average second differential amount, the two or more nozzles associated with the focused nozzle in advance include nozzles belonging to each of all groups different from the group to which the focused nozzle belongs.
It is these limitations, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
With respect to Claim 5, Kyoso (as modified by Yokozawa and Yamazaki) teaches the landing position deviation amount detection method (i.e., “abnormality detection method” including obtaining a “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212 & Abstract) according to claim 1.
However, Kyoso in combination with the other prior art of record does not reasonably teach or suggest the feature of the landing position deviation amount detection method according to claim 1, wherein regarding the obtaining the average second differential amount, the two or more nozzles associated with the focused nozzle in advance include a predetermined number of nozzles that belong to each of two or more groups different from the group to which the focused nozzle belongs and are to land ink at positions close to a position where the focused nozzle should land ink in the second direction.
It is these limitations, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
With respect to Claim 6, Kyoso (as modified by Yokozawa and Yamazaki) teaches the landing position deviation amount detection method (i.e., “abnormality detection method” including obtaining a “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212 & Abstract) according to claim 1.
However, Kyoso in combination with the other prior art of record does not reasonably teach or suggest the feature of the landing position deviation amount detection method according to claim 1, wherein, in the obtaining the reference position,
a nozzle pitch that is a distance between two adjacent nozzles in the second direction is obtained based on positions of two position marks included in the captured image and a number of nozzles that should land ink in a region corresponding to between the two position marks, and
the reference position for each nozzle is obtained using the nozzle pitch.
It is these limitations, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
With respect to Claim 7, Kyoso (as modified by Yokozawa and Yamazaki) teaches the landing position deviation amount detection method (i.e., “abnormality detection method” including obtaining a “landing position shift amount”; ¶0212 & Abstract) according to claim 1.
However, Kyoso in combination with the other prior art of record does not reasonably teach or suggest the feature of the landing position deviation amount detection method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining the actual landing position includes:
dividing the captured image into K images in the first direction such that each of divided images corresponds to one nozzle in the first direction with K being an integer of 2 or more;
calculating an average value of data of a plurality of pixels included in the first direction for each of K divided images obtained in the dividing the captured image into K images; and
specifying the actual landing position for each nozzle based on the average value.
It is these limitations, expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights